Pretty sure I'd rather be crucified than go through what he has. At least it'd be over with in a day.
Julian Assange failed to arrive in time this morning to hear the Supreme Court's judgment on his appeal against extradition to Sweden to face allegations of sexual harassment and rape because he was reportedly stuck in traffic. But he isn't about to board a plane to the Nordic country any time soon as his QC Dinah Rose …
Pretty sure I'd rather be crucified than go through what he has. At least it'd be over with in a day.
In conclusion: don't do anything the US doesn't like.
Not a day, can last upwards of a week before you die from crucifixion. It's a horrible way to go. You know that bit in the Christ story about how the Romans forbid people from breaking his bones? For years I thought that was mercy, when it was actually cruelty. Breaking the legs and/or arms means they will die much quicker. You suffer extreme fatigue, then you slump, and you start to suffocate, then you pull yourself up again, over and over again until you finally die.
It's one of the most hideous ways to kill someone. So regardless of what I think of Manning, I don't think he'd be better off being crucified.
Crucifixion? Good, out of the door, line on the left, one cross each.
But at least it gets you out in the open air.
In another age and time, as with Giordano Bruno whose burned ashes still stink the Campo de' Fiori square in Rome, Bradley Manning will probably be revered and martyred for having had the guts to do what so few others have ever done--that's to take on the secretive, unaccountable diplomatic network knowing full well that to be caught would be essentially the end of life as he once knew it.
He should have grown a beard and changed his name to Qatarda, it would have taken years for the extradition.
Grown some moobs and changed his name to Sandra,.
I can see a waitress job with tips.
Tragic as may be what Manning is going through, this news story isn't about him. It's about a plonker called Assange.
That's Assange™ if you don't mind.
Don't do anything that the US doesn't like.
Like breaking their laws?
Bradley is US citizen and in a war zone stole classified documents. (Allegedly)
Sorry but this is an issue about Assange who duped Bradley in to being stupid.
What war? When did the US officially declare war then?
'In another age and time, as with Giordano Bruno whose burned ashes still stink the Campo de' Fiori square in Rome, Bradley Manning will probably be revered and martyred for having had the guts to do what so few others have ever done--that's to take on the secretive, unaccountable diplomatic network knowing full well that to be caught would be essentially the end of life as he once knew it.'
Yes, very true. There are fewer and fewer people willing to 'do the right thing' regardless of impact on themselves. I guess Bradley Manning may not have appreciated just how much trouble he would be in, but I'm sure he knew it would be bad. That's how governments, politicians etc. get away with it all the time. They bully people and know most people these days won't do anything. Same happens with companies. In many, it's every person for themselves and one employee won't stand up for another. very sad and very bad for the human race in general.
Good question. The USofA can hardly invoke laws designed and stipulated for wartime when they can't even be bothered to declare war!! Of course, Britain also did that in the Falklands 'conflict'. Looks like a war, feels like a war, but somehow isn't!!
It's interesting that you think the USA is at war. If the majority is as ill informed as you, it would explain why there was less outcry when the state murdered Osama bin Laden in cold blood.
Awwww, love poor little Osama bin Laden. He was misunderstood. He had a communication problem. What we must do is sit in front of the round window together and talk about his feelings and not kill him in cold blood. There now; isn't that better?
I think the complaint here is more that no matter what Osama did, despite the public order being to "bring him in", the private order was "WURR GUNNA KILL THAT SUNNUVABITCH, YEEHAW."
He'd have ended up with a bullet in the head even if they'd have found him face down and handcuffed.
Which I'm sure suits some bloodythirsty psychopaths just fine.
"It's interesting that you think the USA is at war. If the majority is as ill informed as you, it would explain why there was less outcry when the state murdered Osama bin Laden in cold blood."
People call the Viet Nam a war when it was technically a 'Policing Action'.
But lets not debate the words. Would you rather I call it a combat zone?
Squeally piggy. The bacon slicer draws ever closer.
I can't think of anyone I've ever seen before that makes me feel dirty just be looking at them.
Mr J.A. does that though - I feel the need to wash my eyeballs out with wire wool and dettol now.
Does pcsupport stand for "Police Constable Support" ?
"I can't think of anyone I've ever seen before that makes me feel dirty just be looking at them. Mr J.A. does that though - I feel the need to wash my eyeballs out with wire wool and dettol now."
Well then why do we even need a trial? He's obviously guilty if he looks creepy to you.
I dun like 'im.
His eyes are too close together.
That's because there's not enough integrity in his head to keep them further apart.
I see what you've done there, brilliant, I mean, if he's Police that would make him bad, because Police are bad aren't they? Who needs 'em, eh? We'll just form militias based on the principle that anyone who interferes with copyright theft, sorry, freedom of information should be executed, right?
Eyes do not come under the purview of phrenology. If you look at Lombroso's work you may find a suitable body of work covering stuff on, e.g., eyes. Oh yes. Lots and lots and lots.
You may collect your minority report on the way out.
Phrenology is the discredited pseudoscience of determining criminal tendencies by the size and shape of certain parts of the skull. Eyesockets included, though granted, not the eyes directly.
However, Lombroso's work is interesting, and you forgot about the icon on the left!
(note the phrenology chart at the top of the page)
UK government gets a written guarantee that Sweden will no extradite Assange to the US before he is allowed to return to the UK. They did it with Jordan for the extradition of Abu Qatada, and it could be equally argued Assange threatened National Security as much as Qatada (one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter).
Anyone who thinks Assange is at more risk from the US Authorities in Sweden than he is in the UK is deeply naive.
If I was accused of rape, I'd be fairly keen to clear my name. Clearly this isn't high on Assange's agenda.
As has been stated before.....
If you're accused of rape (or several other crimes) and it becomes as public as this (in many cases it does), you can never clear your name. This is a strong bias in British law. The accuser remains anonymous forever (regardless of being shown to be an outright liar) and yet the accused always has the smear over their name. Doesn't matter if you were found not guilty or the details of the case and why you were found not guilty. There is too much 'no smoke without fire'.
The same goes for kiddy fiddling and many teachers have found this to their cost. Entire careers ruined on the basis of a lie. I know of one teacher who was accused by a female student, who went on to admit it was all lies. Doesn't matter. His name got in the press and now he is unemployable. The girl? Can't be identified......forever.
In cases of sex crimes, you can never be found not guilty and even an accusation (whether it makes it to trial or not), will often ruin your entire life. That's one of the reasons I won't have anything to do with any form of club (say sports club) that involves children. Far too risky.
I hope you aren't saying that victims of rape should be identified. It is difficult enough to get victims to come forward who have been raped or sexually assaulted, even when they do people won't believe them because of cases like you have stated. For every false accusation there are many suffering in silence.
I agree that the cases of false accusations are bad for everyone but lets not forget about the reasons for that annonymity. People who admit to bringing false charges should of course face charges themselves unless they are admitting it under duress (eg a forced retraction) This is a difficult issue and not as clear cut as you seem to make out.
I don't think I ever suggested anonymity of the accuser should be removed. I merely pointed out the inequity. I would also ask how many cases of the accuser being prosecuted for making up rape allegations you know of? I'd bet on none. The reason is simple. You can't bring a charge against them as the anonymity would have to be broken to do so and this has precedence.
The bias is clear cut; what to do about it is not. There's an obvious answer of allowing anonymity to the accused until found guilty, but this has issues as well and won't always work.
There is also an element of simple logic here. Sexual relations and rape tend to happen in private. Therefore, no matter what you do, proof becomes difficult, as it's normally one persons word against another. Generally, this is difficult to get round and exactly how you make one persons word worth more than another is a very difficult area. So, whilst I agree we should do nothing to stop people coming forward, we also have to accept prosecutions and guilty verdicts will be lower for this sort of crime than others due to the nature of the circumstances. Biasing the law to increase conviction rates just means more scope for false accusations and people wrongly found guilty.
I don't like the thought of people getting away with these crimes, but it's a natural result of requiring evidence in a court case. Often there isn't a lot. Yes, sex took place. Often provable. The circumstances etc., very difficult to prove. Making it on the word of the victim (supposed) doesn't make it fairer.
From what I can make out, the Swedish system seems pretty silly and that results in the penalties being much lower. I have no problem with attaching conditions (like using a condom) to sex, but being able to change your mind after the act, seems rather odd. I don't know the exact ins and outs (pardon the pun) of the Swedish law on this, but that's how it comes across from the press coverage. Maybe the press is wrong, but the low penalities for some types of 'rape' in Sweden would suggest they are either degrading the crime, or the word 'rape' is being used to mean lots of things other than non-consensual sex.
Whilst not having a test for the women might make Assange heartless, a twat and maybe morally wrong, I think it would be rather difficult to implement laws for it. Apart from anything else, it contradicts the medical oath as doctors would be unable to do anything without his consent.
there should be anonnimity on BOTH sides.
If the accused is found guilty THEN name him. If the accuser if found to be a lying shite then NAME HER!
cases like rape need to be treated slightly differently to other crimes because of the fact that people just assume that even when found not guilty and even when the judge specifically makes comments strongly pointing out the accuser lied, the person in the dock is assumed guilty anyway with the whole "there's no smoke without fire" thinking
I agree at one level, but anonymity never really happens. The immediate community know full well what's going on and the inability of the press to publish names doesn't stop them becoming public knowledge, certainly in the close community.
The issue here is that the accuser is not necessarily lying and maybe they were raped, but the evidence wasn't strong enough. The not guilty verdict means anything from didn't do it to not enough evidence to prove guilt. This is the issue.
It's a rather interesting position of CRB checks, especially enhanced ones. Not sure if they directly check previous accusations or not guilty verdicts, but they're allowed to use heresay within reason, so wouldn't surprise me. You wouldn't believe how many jobs now require a CRB.........
>>"I would also ask how many cases of the accuser being prosecuted for making up rape allegations you know of? I'd bet on none."
There are certainly some cases prosecuted in the UK, some successfully.
Though I guess the small number might depend on the nature of the overall process as well as the actual number of bogus claims.
Not only is it likely, as in the case of other crimes, that genuine accusations are likely to be much more common than false ones, but someone making up claims (especially if they hinged on consent rather than whether an encounter had happened at all) might have various opportunities to drop them with little chance of being proved wrong.
If someone's accusation was that they were taken advantage of while drunk, or said 'no' quietly but were too scared to repeat it, or were too scared to do much in the way of resisting at all, proving them maliciously wrong would seem pretty tricky*.
Given that many people making genuine accusations might also drop them for (justified or unjustified) fear of the overall process, it could be rather hard to justify putting much effort into following up any but the most suspicious of abandoned accusations.
And in a situation where many genuine claims may well be dropped by people scared of the expected process and unwilling to gamble in the hope of a conviction, it might be particularly hard to pursue all but the likeliest bogus claims with any energy, for fear of effectively seeming to harass numerous genuine people for every fraud pursued - to do more than go after the most obvious cases might be a PR disaster.
>>"The reason is simple. You can't bring a charge against them as the anonymity would have to be broken to do so and this has precedence.."
Well, remember that adults *are* charged and convicted of sexual offences without being publicly identified in some situations, where identifying them would also identify an alleged [underage] victim, so there's no absolute bar in UK law on the identity of defendants being kept unpublicised.
The US government hates free speech with a passion and always acts against it. Ironically most Americans still truly believe the US is "The Land Of The Free(tm)". Mostly because most of them never go outside the US so are easily convinced by the local propaganda that the rest of the world is far worse.
The US gov are driven to totally destroy the lives of people like Assange and Manning to make an example of them, and prevent others from even considering airing the dirty truth about the US's governments level of corruption. Thats why Manning will inevitably be found guilty on all charges and get maximum sentence, regardless of any legitimate defence he has.
It also seems inevitable to me that the rape accusation was faked up by 2 prostitutes taking CIA money. The USA needed some way to destroy Assange's life, and as he is out of their reach they cant do it directly, so they readily ignored their own laws and engaged in attempted corruption of 2 other country's legal systems without a second thought, to achieve their objective. The US gov is blatantly corrupt to the core so this is second nature to them and hardly surprising.
The disappointing thing is that Swedish gov are so clearly complicit and willing to be the USA's bitches, something I naively thought Sweden would have more independence and moral backbone than to be.
At least the good ol' UK has proved it doesn't bend its knee to the CIA so easliy. As a Brit living in the US that thought warms the cockles of my sentimental heart.
I really recommend you stop smoking whatever it is you use. Even Assange(tm) wouldn't have dared to come up with that one.
It also seems inevitable to me that the rape accusation was faked up by 2 prostitutes taking CIA money.
The questioning (not conviction, questioning) is to ascertain if a charge of rape can be levied. The whole problem with this debate is what "rape" represents in this context. The alleged Assange "rape" is not one of abuse, it is one created out of neglect. Post-coital, as it were - in a UK context it probably doesn't have an equivalent, so the word "rape" is not quite a tight fit -sorry- for the evil deed he is asked to come and explain.
He has been asked (as shown by conveniently leaked -sorry- paperwork) to get himself checked, as Assange(tm) apparently much preferred to go bare - and apparently did so in the course of the act(s), as it were. The young ladies in question asked for assistance to get Assange(tm) to have himself tested - something anyone with even a shred of decency would have done (unless they were already leaking, which is a. another pun but b. may explain his reluctance - no idea if we ever find out). As Assange(tm) fled (let's be clear, "fled", not "casually sauntered out unaware of any possible consequences") this query remained outstanding - and a clock started ticking in the process, to the point where it became a potential criminal matter (the "rape" which isn't really the UK version thereof) and even a withdrawal -sorry- of the complaint could no longer abort -sorry- proceedings. E(r)go, he's got only himself to blame.
The whole BS about US involvement is just that, BS. If anything, shipping him to Sweden makes it HARDER to ship him to a cosy slot in Guantanamo Bay because the Swedes are much less comfy collaborating with the US than the arrangement we have to "thank" Blair for. If the Swedes were that able to ship him, in comparison, the UK would have already nailed Assange(tm) into a tightly shut coffin with some breathing holes and an open box of itching powder near his nether regions to remind him where his problems started.
The whole reason the US came into the picture is because Assange(tm) is still hoping to somehow milk this for himself. Assange(tm) really needs no US assistance to screw up his life - he's perfectly able to do that all by himself. No go and take your medicine.
Assange goes to Sweden, faces charges.
If guilty, he does his time. (His time in the UK doesn't count as time served.)
Afterwards he will be placed on a plane back to Australia.
(He's traveling on an Aussie passport.)
IMHO, it is then that the US will seek to extradite him to stand trial.
Note too that he could also face charges in Australia too.
(There were Aussie forces put in harms way due to his data dump of non-redacted information.)
So please separate his sexual activities from his Wikileaks. Spending time in a Swedish prison might help to toughen him up when he sees the real thing.
"If guilty, he does his time. (His time in the UK doesn't count as time served.)"
Oh please - there's no "time' to 'do'. It's a bloody fine (around 700 of your seriously devalued US dollars). It's not 'rape' in the normal sense of the word. Sex by Surprise has no actual counterpart in other jurisdictions, but it seems teh meeja decided rape was the analogue most likely to make it sound like a real crime.
Incidentally, time in a Swedish prison isn't likely to toughen ANYBODY up, Swedish felons appear to be more unfailingly polite than the bloody Swiss.
I agree it's a very difficult area and there is genuine fear of putting off real victims, but there is without doubt a lot of bias here. Not long ago, a male Oxford (I think) student was prosecuted and very rapidly cleared of rape in the most dubious of situations. I guess his career prospects are now pretty bad. Quite often, even if the supposed 'victim' is ultimately prosecuted for lying, the smear remains on the not guilty defendant. They can never get away from the stigma. Something needs to be done about it. although I'm not sure it's exactly clear what. Similarly, there are other areas of the law that have clear and obvious bias between the sexes, not just sex crimes.
'Well, remember that adults *are* charged and convicted of sexual offences without being publicly identified in some situations, where identifying them would also identify an alleged [underage] victim, so there's no absolute bar in UK law on the identity of defendants being kept unpublicised.'
It's not impossible to prosecute someone for perjury (likely charge) when bringing false accusations, but it is very rare, even when they clearly lied. Yes, for some offences, the defendants identify can be kept confidential, but again this is rare. The big issue is that judges are very loathed to remove the accusers anonymity (although it has happened) in rape cases where lying has been established. The circumstances basically have to be absolutely overwhelming. However, even in these cases, it is remarkably rare for a perjury prosecution to occur.
This is obviously made worse by a lot of rape accusations happening in circumstances where it might be quite reasonable for each party to have different recollections of the event. For instance, when drunk. The 'victim' doesn't remember giving consent and the defendant believes it was given. Probably nobody knows the real answer. It might also be a case of each taking a different view on the circumstances. I can understand there are circumstances where the victim genuinely believes they have been raped and yet looking at the exact circumstances as an independent, people could take a different interpretation. Not because of malice from either party, but simply the impact of drink or drugs etc.leading to impairment of the senses etc.
What I don't really understand is how you can insist on the person being checked afterwards. Morally, perhaps he should and it's just the 'right' thing to do. But, to be able to enforce it in law? Very weird. Does that mean a man can insist on a woman being checked? Also, in this country at least, you can't be forced to undergo a medical procedure against your wishes unless declared incapable for some reason and therefore a 'guardian' of some description makes the decision for you. So, if he refuses a medical procedure (which the doctor can't do against his will.......their oath etc.), he's guilty of a crime? All in all, a very weird system.
If you had snuck out of Auschwitz and remembered you owed someone a cigarette, I'm sure you would have gone back in to pay it back and clear your name.
Assange doesn't have a lot more to look forward to in America than he would have had in Auschwitz.
UK government gets a written guarantee that Sweden will no extradite Assange to the US before he is allowed to return to the UK.
That assumes the UK government gives a #### about extradition or rendition to the US. Evidence so far suggests the UK government will happily betray even its own citizens to appease the US.
It's not the medical produce itself - it's about wilfully exposing those women to a potential STD. It appears (tm) himself was responsible for the nether region wardrobe failure, and as such he attracts the liability for the consequences (I guess it takes the equivalent of inflicting bodily harm to someone).
Given the preparedness of (tm) to casually have it off he has thus worried those girls (especially in the light of his apparent preference of doing this without protection) . you could take that as psychological harm to start with.
You're right that you can just go to the police and ask them to help you to get your last night's stand checked up - you need a good reason. The wilful activity of (tm) is that reason, because it then turns into potential harm.
What intrigues me is actually the role of the girls. Nobody has asked why they withdrew the complaint. I see a *lot* of people throwing stuff up like that they have been "encouraged" by some weird US involvement - what made them recall the complaint seems to have been glossed over..
Actually, I think victims, (actual victims) should remain anonymous, however: if it's proven the charges were an outright lie, there should be as much publicity as possible pointing to the act the liar has committed and there should be some recourse for the victim of the lie to punish the liar. To bear false witness against your fellow man is against God's law.
I agree that many people would consider him in the moral wrong. What harm would it do to go to the clinic and get checked for them. A couple of hours of his time. Absolutely correct. However, moving from morally wrong to forced by law is a big step. When the women go to the police, you say they need a good reason........How do they provide a good reason that stands up? They say he wilfully removed it. He says he didn't. You're then forcing him to take the test on the grounds you're assuming their word is better than his? Yes, morally he should have just done the test and got on with life. However, using the law to force him is a whole new world. It potentially sets precedents for all sorts of things.
I suspect that telling the truth is a waste of time, but yes, I read the same stuff and I cannot disagree with your comments.
"Spending time in a Swedish prison might help to toughen him up when he sees the real thing."
'Are you wearing anything Bubba?'; 'Yes, you'.
That was my point that Swedish prison is nothing compared to the real thing.
700 of our seriously devalued dollars? Have you checked out the conversion rate to the Euro lately?
Sorry, but I believe their charges of 'rape' carry the potential for jail time.
Had Assange actually gone back and faced the charges, he might have gotten off with a fine if he was found guilty.
But his running? Sorry, but he's going to face jail time if convicted. Were this an issue of merely a fine, it would have been over long ago.
If Sweden would outright guarantee that they wont send him to the US, but straight back to the UK or Australia, then this whole thing could have been avoided, or at least the public support for Assange would have shrunk drastically.
The main thing people have a problem with is the idea that the US is cherry-picking a place to extradite him from, and Sweden it would be done quickly, where-as a common-law country like the UK it would be long and very public.